To The Herald-Whig:

What should be done? For years we've heard talk about how we can handle the flood problem. "We need better dam control." "We need higher levees." There have been other "suggestions."

What we really need is a good, complete flood control system that, to my knowledge, has not been tried.

We have been trying to keep the river contained in about the same width. Perhaps what we should do is allow it to flow -- but into huge, deep pits on both sides of the river, the length of the flood area, in places that preferably are not tillable land, but when necessary, could be placed in fields, then covered. This would allow the land to be tilled.

The water could flow by gravity as the river level rose, then be pumped out when the river level receded. Or this water could be sold to farmers in dry months, or stored for use in fighting fires. Or it could be pumped back into the river at a later time.

We also need, connected to this system, a national water system to supply water to areas that are in desperate need of water for agriculture or communities, or for use in fighting fires.

People will wonder what all this would cost. Consider the cost of lost or damaged homes, businesses, the loss of jobs, infrastructure, taxes, hospitals, schools, farms, including homes, machinery, outbuildings, livestock and field crops.

If we could save just one life, and it would be yours or a loved one, how much would it be worth? There are many areas where it would be worth the cost, and more.

Imagine a national water system that would provide water to areas where there is a very serious water shortage, where rivers are completely used up before they reach the coast.

How many more years of immeasurable losses will we have to endure before we all get what we should have had many years ago?

This letter has only touched on the many areas of the problems involved. Don't tell me I don't understand the scope of the problem.

Let's have some results -- now!

Kenneth W. Morrison

Quincy